Exodus 18:17-27 is the basic foundation of our Republic and its premise of how
representative Republic is framed. The Electoral College was designed to keep
this foundation from being undermined by preventing parts of the country being
tyrannical over the other parts.

Exodus 18:17-27 (BBE) - And Moses' father-in-law said to him, What you are doing is not
good. Your strength and that of the people will be completely used up: this work
is more than you are able to do by yourself. Give ear now to my suggestion, and
may God be with you: you are to be the people's representative before God,
taking their causes to him: Teaching them his rules and his laws, guiding them
in the way they have to go, and making clear to them the work they have to do.
But for the rest, take from among the people able men, such as have the fear
of God, true men hating profits wrongly made; and put such men over them, to be
captains of thousands, captains of hundreds and of fifties and of tens; And let
them be judges in the causes of the people at all times: and let them put before
you all important questions, but in small things let them give decisions
themselves: in this way, it will be less hard for you, and they will take the
weight off you. If you do this, and God gives approval, then you will be able
to go on without weariness, and all this people will go to their tents in peace.
So Moses took note of the words of his father-in-law, and did as he had said.
And he made selection of able men out of all Israel, and made them heads over
the people, captains of thousands, captains of hundreds and of fifties and of
tens. And they were judges in the causes of the people at all times: the hard
questions they put before Moses; but on every small point they gave decisions
themselves. And Moses let his father-in-law go away, and he went back to his
land.

Constitutional Ignorance — Perhaps Contempt
- By Walter E. Williams - Hillary Clinton blamed the Electoral College for her stunning defeat in the 2016 presidential election in her latest memoirs, What Happened? Some have claimed that the Electoral College is one of the most dangerous institutions in American politics. Why? They say the Electoral College system, as opposed to a simple majority vote, distorts the one-person, one-vote principle of democracy because electoral votes are not distributed according to population.

...Many people whine that using the Electoral College instead of the popular vote and majority rule is undemocratic. I’d say that they are absolutely right. Not deciding who will be the president by majority rule is not democracy. But the Founding Fathers went to great lengths to ensure that we were a republic and not a democracy. In fact, the word democracy does not appear in the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution or any other of our founding documents.
...The Founders expressed contempt for the tyranny of majority rule, and throughout our Constitution, they placed impediments to that tyranny. Two houses of Congress pose one obstacle to majority rule. That is, 51 senators can block the wishes of 435 representatives and 49 senators. The president can veto the wishes of 535 members of Congress. It takes two-thirds of both houses of Congress to override a presidential veto. To change the Constitution requires not a majority but a two-thirds vote of both houses, and if an amendment is approved, it requires ratification by three-fourths of state legislatures. Finally, the Electoral College is yet another measure that thwarts majority rule. It makes sure that the highly populated states — today, mainly 12 on the East and West coasts, cannot run roughshod over the rest of the nation. That forces a presidential candidate to take into consideration the wishes of the other 38 states.

...Currently, seven states with populations of one million or fewer have one representative, thus giving them disproportionate influence in Congress. While we’re at it, should we make all congressional acts be majority rule? When we’re finished with establishing majority rule in Congress, should we then move to change our court system, which requires unanimity in jury decisions, to a simple majority rule?

...My question is: Is it ignorance of or contempt for our Constitution that fuels the movement to abolish the Electoral College?

The final three weeks of the Constitutional Convention, 1787. Congressional matters have largely been
decided, and the delegates move their attention to the executive branch. After
much debate pitting national and federal powers against each other, the
Electoral College is proposed and adopted: as with the Connecticut Compromise,
the president would be elected by a combination of the people and the states.

"[In a pure democracy], [a] common passion or interest
will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication
and concert results from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to
check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual.
Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and
contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the
rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they
have been violent in their deaths." James Madison

"The fundamental principle of our
Constitution, which enjoins that the will of the majority shall prevail."
(Within the framework of the Constitution and Biblical Law, not mob rule.)George Washington (1732-1799) Father
of the Country, 1st President of the United States

"A democracy is nothing more than mob
rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the
other forty-nine." Thomas Jefferson

"The ordaining of laws in favor of one part of the nation,
to the prejudice and oppression of another, is certainly the most erroneous and
mistaken policy. An equal dispensation of protection, rights, privileges, and
advantages, is what every part is entitled to, and ought to enjoy." --
Benjamin Franklin
(Emblematical Representations, Circa 1774) Reference: The Works of Benjamin
Franklin, Sparks, ed. (457) - The Patriot Post Founders' Quote Daily

Why We Use Electoral College, Not Popular Vote - By Jarrett
Stepman ...The system empowers states, especially smaller ones, because it
incentivizes presidential candidates to appeal to places that may be far away
from population centers. Farmers in Iowa may have very different concerns than
bankers in New York. A more federalist system of electing presidents takes that
into account. ...Additionally, if the president were elected by unfiltered
national vote, small and rural states would become irrelevant, and campaigns
would spend their time in large, populous districts.

Why the Electoral
College? - By
TheJohnBirchSociety - In the aftermath of every presidential election, the
Electoral College comes under scrutiny, even attack. Many Americans have no clue
of its important role in safeguarding us from the tyranny of the majority. Watch
the video to learn
more. Then contact your state representatives to tell them to protect the
Electoral College as it is under attack from those who want to see it replaced
with the national popular vote. Contact your state reps:
https://www.votervoice.net/JBS/2/camp...

Myth: A national direct election system would be better than the
Electoral College. It would force presidential candidates to run truly national
campaigns because votes in every corner of the country would have the
same weight. Every voter will matter only if every vote is equal.
Fact: The real question is not whether voters are or are not equal
with each other. Every voter in this nation is equal with every other voter in
his same election pool. The question is whether the relevant election pool
should be one national election pool or 51 state (plus D.C.) election pools.
Second, it’s important to remember that there is an important difference between
giving votes the same legal weight and making voters equal in practice. Perhaps it helps to remember how our system operates today.
Americans don’t hold one single, national election for President. Instead, we
have an election that operates in two phases. In the first phase of the
election, Americans participate in 51 completely separate elections—one in each
state and one in D.C. The purpose of these purely democratic, state-level
elections is to determine which individuals (electors) will represent your state
in a second phase of the election. In these state-level elections, your vote
carries the exact same weight as every other voter in your election pool! In
other words, every vote cast in Kentucky has the same legal weight. Likewise,
every voter in Florida is equal with every other voter in Florida.
The second phase of the election occurs in December. This latter
election is an election among the states’ 538 electors, which were elected on
Election Day. A majority of them (270) can elect a President.
Electoral College opponents correctly note that eliminating the
Electoral College would change our two-phase process into a single, national
election. Thus, instead of votes that have the same legal weight at the state
level, we’d have votes that have the same legal weight at the national level.
But there is an important difference between making voters legally equal and
making them equal in practice. If we conduct one single national election, we
will have the former, but not the latter. If we keep our current system, we
ultimately do better with both.
Presidential candidates have limited time and resources; they must
strategize and prioritize. They won’t run out to a remote city like Worland,
Wyoming, simply because the 4,000 potential votes there have the same legal
weight as 4,000 votes cast anywhere else in the country. As a strategic matter,
candidates are immensely more productive if they head to a large urban area to
get those 4,000 votes. It’s simple math. In a big city like Los Angeles, they
will obtain not only 4,000 votes but probably millions more. In a world without
the Electoral College, rural areas and small states will never again matter in
the presidential election. It won’t matter that their votes have the same legal
weight as voters in big cities. Practically speaking, candidates have little
incentive to care how they vote.
The Electoral College, by contrast, forces presidential candidates
to broaden their appeal as much as possible. If a candidate has already won
California, then the 4,000 extra votes in Wyoming or another small state really
might be what he needs. He doesn’t need any more votes in L.A. His campaign
strategy must take into account the fact that his support must cross state and
regional boundaries if he is to win a majority of states’ electoral votes.
Electoral College opponents sound irrefutable when they argue that
the Electoral College should be eliminated because “every vote should be equal.”
They forget—or choose to ignore—that the Founders incorporated state action into
our presidential election system for very important reasons. And it turns out
that giving votes equal legal weight within state boundaries (instead of
national boundaries) ensures that voters are not only legally equal, but also
much more equal as a pragmatic matter.
Please don’t miss my new kids’ illustrated book about the Electoral
College!

o
THERE’S A REASON WE LIVE IN A REPUBLIC - By
D.C. McAllister -When people say our president should be elected directly by
the people with a simple plurality of the votes, they’re rejecting the
republican system of government established by our founders. The framers of the
Constitution soundly rejected the concept of a pure democracy where the people
elect leaders directly. Such a system would lead to mob rule where the rights of
the minority are crushed by the will of the majority. As Ben Franklin said,
“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.” Is that
the kind of country we want to live in? The founders certainly didn’t, and they
rejected it. They understood that a representative republic rooted in
constitutional law is best. Our liberties are not determined by the fickle
passions of the majority but by the steady rule of law. Under our system, a
single sheep is armed with the Constitution to face off two ravenous wolves.
...James Madison explains why this is necessary in Federalist 63:
There are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by
some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful
misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they
themselves will afterwards be the most ready to lament and condemn. In these
critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and
respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career, and to
suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason,
justice, and truth can regain their authority over the public mind?

o The
National Popular Vote: a perfectly horrendous idea - By Bryan
Fischer - The NPV has now been adopted by 11 states, with New York being the
latest to sign on just this week. NPV provides that, if enough states sign
compacts with other states, every state which belongs to the compact will
automatically award all of its electoral votes to whichever presidential
candidate wins the nationwide popular vote. New York just added its 29 electoral
votes to the plan, bringing the total number of electoral votes controlled by
NPV to 165, or 61 percent of the total needed for the plan to take effect.
Thus the citizens in states which cast a majority of votes for the
candidate who loses the nationwide popular vote would be instantly
disenfranchised. The Founders would roll over in their ballot boxes to see this
monstrosity make any progress in the nation they built. The Founders established
the Electoral College instead of a direct popular vote precisely because pure
democracy quickly descends into mob rule. They understood fallen humanity, and
knew how easily and quickly the masses can be deceived by charlatans and
populists into voting for whoever will tickle enough ears and promise enough
goodies.
Said James Madison, the Father of the Constitution: "Democracy is
the most vile form of government. ... democracies have ever been spectacles of
turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal
security or the rights of property: and have in general been as short in their
lives as they have been violent in their deaths."
You naturally will ask, does this mean the Founders did not trust
the collective electoral wisdom of the people? That's exactly what it means.
They knew the susceptibility of frail human beings to demagoguery and how
quickly a society could unravel under pure democracy. This is how John Adams put
it: "Democracy will soon degenerate into an anarchy; such an anarchy that every
man will do what is right in his own eyes and no man's life or property or
reputation or liberty will be secure, and every one of these will soon mould
itself into a system of subordination of all the moral virtues and intellectual
abilities, all the powers of wealth, beauty, wit, and science, to the wanton
pleasures, the capricious will, and the execrable [abominable] cruelty of one or
a very few."
As a protection against mobocracy, in virtually every circumstance
the Founders sought to insert a layer of insulation between the people
themselves and the selection of public officials and the formation of public
policy. The whole point of the Electoral College was that voters wouldn't even
vote for a president. They would vote instead for electors, who in turn would
select a president for them. The only, absolutely the only, public officials who
were placed into office by a direct vote of the people were members of the House
of Representatives.
Presidents were to be chosen by electors, not by the people.
Senators were to be chosen by state legislatures, not by the people. Judges were
to be chosen by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate, not by
the people. The original design of the Electoral College was that we the people
would not choose a president but rather would choose the people who would choose
a president for us. November elections were intended to be elections in which we
chose electors, not presidents.
The intention of the Founders was that there would be, in today's
terms, 538 separate campaigns for the office of elector, in which candidates for
that office would seek to convince us that they could be trusted with that most
important of decisions, the selection of the next president of the United
States. Once they had chosen a president, their term of office would come to an
end.
This is a subject for another day, but it would be best for us to
award electoral votes congressional district by congressional district rather
than state by state. Nebraska and Maine already do this. Rural districts in
states with huge population centers such as New York and California often feel
disenfranchised, as if their votes don't count and don't matter. It would be far
better to award one electoral vote to every single congressional district, with
two additional electoral votes (for each of the their two senate seats) awarded
to the winner of each state's popular vote. We should be moving toward this as a
goal, not toward the republic-destroying National Popular Vote.
The NPV is a drastic lurch away from a republican form of
government and should be firmly, immediately and persistently resisted. Benjamin
Franklin famously told us that the Founders had given us "a Republic, if you can
keep it." The NPV is just about the fastest way to destroy what is left of that
republic. As Founding Father Benjamin Rush put it, "A simple democracy is the
devil's own government." I prefer the government of the Founders over the
government of the Prince of Darkness. And so should you.

o
Conservatives and tea party win White House with Electoral College reform
By Kevin Fobbs (Feb. 11,
1013) - Presidents Day is nearing and conservatives will have something to
celebrate that day four years from now when the Electoral College is returned to
the voters. Currently, there is a movement in motion in several key presidential
electoral battle ground states to return constitutional selection of the
president to the voters by using congressional district selection of Electoral
College electors. This move would even the playing field in presidential
campaigns, to be more reflective of the true will of the people of a state,
instead of voters being held hostage by the large urban population centers.
Large urban centers typically out vote the majority of
congressional district by stealing votes in cities like Detroit, Cleveland,
Philadelphia and Chicago. This results in state winner-take all electoral votes
swinging unfairly and even illegally to a candidate like Barack Obama. In 2008
and 2012, Obama's Chicago-style thuggish election machine worked to intimidate,
manipulate and otherwise steal a presidential election in dozens of precincts in
urban areas with impunity. This process has created a false narrative that
America has chosen a left-leaning socialist agenda that gives permission for
citizens to be stripped of their Second Amendment gun rights, or states being
forced to stand down against illegal aliens taking their health care, jobs and
now their rights.
The solution has been clear for many years, and states like Nevada
and Maine have already set the pathway toward a more balanced true
representation of a state. They have initiated congressional district selection
of presidential electors. In these states citizens can select their presidential
candidate of choice, without being held hostage to the will of another
congressional district or districts. Currently, there are several states that
have launched efforts to create a more fair and balanced Electoral College
initiative.
Michigan, Virginia, Ohio and Florida are some that are entertaining
the idea. Yet their governors are showing timidity in fully embracing this
patriotic concept. Michigan's governor, Rick Snyder who is up for re-election in
2014, had previously suggested his consideration for the move for voting
fairness. Now, according to TPM, he is backing away. If Snyder and a few other
Republican governors are appearing weak in the knees about restoring electoral
power to the state voters, this is probably the best time to know this.
It gives the conservatives, the Tea Party and other
like-minded voters the opportunity to put them on notice: No support for voter
rights – No re-election! Why is this crucial? Think about how the presidential
election would have been turned on its head. Obama would have been shown the
White House door, if the will of the people had been truly expressed by each
congressional district! In Virginia, Mitt Romney would have beaten Obama 2 to 1,
with Romney picky up 9 electoral votes to Obama's 4 electoral votes. A similar
result would have occurred in Ohio, and other key battle ground states. Obama
would have had his lease terminated by the true representative vote of America.

...Over at National Review Daniel Foster lays out his
version of the positive case for the Electoral College: In short, the
College reflects the formal and constitutional fact that the president is
elected chief executive of a union of states — federated but sovereign — and not
a conglomeration of people. The executive of the Constitution, of the Founders,
is president of the United States, not president of America. Its detractors
consider it an anachronism, but if federalism still means anything — and sadly,
that’s something of an open question — then the College is as vital as ever. It
affirms that we vote as citizens of the several states, not mere residents of
arbitrarily drawn administrative districts.

...As Foster says, the Electoral College serves to
make Presidential elections truly national, requiring candidates to register
support not just in the high population areas on the East and West Coasts but
also in the interior of the nation where interests vastly different from those
of the Boston-New York-Washington corridor and the San Francisco-Los Angeles-San
Diego corridor motivate voters. It also reinforces whatever remaining strands of
Federalism still exist in this country, thus challenging the idea that all
wisdom must come from Washington.

...The advocates of eliminating the Electoral College
are proposing what is, without a doubt, a radical change to our Constitutional
structure. Potentially, it would have a significant impact on the relationship
between the Federal Government and the states regarding the question of who
exactly is the final authority when it comes to deciding the outcome of an
election.

o
FOOL ME TWICE: OBAMA'S SHOCKING PLANS FOR THE NEXT FOUR YEARS EXPOSED
Book By Aaron Klein and Brenda J. Elliott - Progressive organizations are
quietly pushing a "popular vote" that could see only 14 states - those with the
largest populations - decide the presidency for voters in all 50 states,
according to a book released this week that's now skyrocketing up bestseller
charts. The book contains a bonus chapter on the subject and documents concerns
over voter fraud in the upcoming presidential election. It also presents new
information about a foreign-based company – Scytl – running hundreds of online
U.S. voting systems.

...National Popular Vote: The vote for
president is the only one in which all Americans vote for a national leader. In
framing the U.S. Constitution, Klein and Elliott write, the Founding Fathers
displayed their characteristic wisdom and subtlety in firmly rejecting a purely
popular vote to elect the president, in order to balance the power of the larger
states against the smaller.The Electoral College was fashioned as a compromise between an election of
the president by direct popular vote and election by Congress. However, "Fool Me
Twice" documents how a group backed by a who's who of the progressive left,
calling itself the National Popular Vote, or NPV, has already
been successful in quietly pushing for abolishing the Electoral College in favor
of a "popular vote."

"Under the rubric of a 'National Popular Vote,'
this plan would allow the 14 most populous American states, mostly
majority-Democrat, to determine the outcome of future presidential elections.
The voters of the 36 less populous states would then effectively be
disenfranchised," warn Klein and Elliott. The plan is already gaining traction.
In 2007, Maryland became the first state to approve a "national popular vote"
compact. As a result, in a theoretical winner-take-all contest, Maryland would
allocate all of its 10 electoral votes to the candidate who won the most votes
nationally – even if the same candidate did not win the most votes in Maryland.

By March 2012, eight states – California, Hawaii, Illinois,
Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Vermont, Washington, plus the District of
Columbia – had enacted the "national popular vote" into law.
Two other states, Colorado and Rhode Island, had passed it in both houses, but
it had not been enacted. Ten more states had passed it in one house, and 10
others had passed it in a committee. Eleven states had held hearings on it, and
nine more states had introduced bills.
While organizational support comes almost exclusively from left-leaning
groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union, the League of Women Voters,
the Soros-funded Common Cause and the Demos group, NPV's army of lobbyists has
also been pushing its plan to the Republican National Committee, the American
Legislative Exchange Council and conservative think tanks such as the Heartland
Institute and the Heritage Foundation. There is, however, one hitch in the NPV
plan: For a "national popular vote" to predominate, the full 270 electoral votes
must be based on identical legislation (the "interstate compact") passed by each
state.
See the "Fool Me Twice" trailer. Dozens and dozens of second-term plans are
uncovered in "Fool
Me Twice."

o
National Popular Vote: Goodbye, Sweet America By Publius
Huldah - Our Constitution is under constant attack.1 One of the most
pernicious attacks is being waged by those who seek to override the
constitutional provisions under which The States, as political entities, elect
the President; and to replace it with a national popular vote (NPV) under which
inhabitants of major metropolitan areas will choose the President. What Form of
Government Did We Create In Our Constitution? Before you can see why it is so
important that The States elect the President, and why the NPV is so execrable,
you must understand how our “federal” government was structured and intended to
operate. “Federal” actually referred to the form of the national government
created in our Constitution, and to the division of powers between the national
government and The States. The “Federation” created by our Constitution is an
alliance of independent and sovereign States associated together in a
“confederation” with a national government to which is delegated authority over
the States in specifically defined areas ONLY (national defense, international
commerce & relations; and domestically, the creation of an uniform commercial
system: weights & measures, patents & copyrights, a monetary system based on
gold & silver, bankruptcy laws, and mail delivery). Those
enumerated powers are the only areas wherein the national government has
lawful (constitutional) authority over The States. In all other matters, the
States retained supremacy, independence, and sovereignty.

o ELECTORAL
COLLEGE BATTLE: SHOVELING THE USURPER BACK INTO OFFICE By: Devvy -
The chicanery being played against the American people by lunatics working so
hard for their own destruction is cranking up:
Eliminating the Electoral College Eliminates States Rights and Obama
Remains As President "While we are paying attention to the OWS and
to Republican debates where the candidates annihilate each other, the
Progressives have a plan to keep themselves in power forever, starting in 2012.
"They plan to do this by eliminating the role of states, a protection written
into our Constitution, and they are doing it covertly while in plain sight. The
Progressive initiative is called the “National Popular Vote Compact” aka NPVC
and their information is being spread nationwide via the Internet since 2008.
"They claim it is “true democracy” but “democracy” to them is interchangeable
with “socialism” and worse, as it was in the sixties. They are moving state by
state to bypass the Constitutional amendment process, relegating our SCOTUS to
complete insignificance. As per the Communist Manifesto, “popularism” is the
means of “democracy.” It achieves a monopoly of democratic parties for the
worldwide Socialist order. "Their goal is to have all the required 270 Electoral
Votes needed for a “winner” given to the candidate who wins the largest number
of popular votes nationally – no matter how small the win margin and no
difference how many states voted to oppose him.

o
Abolishing the Electoral College? By
Darlene Casella - Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr tied in the Presidential
Election of 1800. Jefferson was subsequently elected by a vote in the House of
Representatives. To ensure that this could not happen again, Congress proposed
and ratified a new design of the Electoral College which was ratified in 1804,
as the 12th Amendment. The popular vote idea was presented at that time, and
rejected. The Founders were acutely aware of the populist degeneration into
dictatorship that resulted from the recent French Revolution. They saved our
country from a similar fate.

The United States of America is a Republic, not a
Democracy. This leads to misconceptions about our election processes. The
Founders conceived a concept to prevent a majority from infringing upon the
rights of a minority. They accomplished this by establishing a representative,
rather than democratic, election process. The majority mob rule of France had
taken away property rights and eventually civil rights from the minority with
which they disagreed. The Wall Street protestors appear to have a similar
goal. The founders disavowed the popular vote to insure fundamental freedoms of
all citizens; and to protect minority interests from a majority mob influence.

In 1804 the Electoral College established fair representative
electors. Each state’s electors are determined by the combined number of
senators and congressmen in that state. Each state has two senators. The number
of Congress Members is determined by population poll statistics. California has
two senators and 53 members of Congress, for a total of 55 electoral votes. Tiny
Vermont has two Senators and one Congressman for 3 electoral votes. Elections
for President and Vice president of the United States are indirect
elections. Voters cast ballots for a Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, or other
slate. The state electors in turn directly elect the President and Vice
President.

The Founders strongly desired that small population states, as
well as large, have a voice in determining the Presidential outcome. That is
accomplished through the Electoral College system. The National Popular Vote
Interstate Compact (NPVIC) has been a populist movement since 2007. Their goal
is to replace the Electoral College of the 12thAmendment. NPVIC uses a technical
detail in the Constitution to bypass the two thirds majority vote in both houses
required to overturn an Amendment. The 18thAmendment, Prohibition, was
overturned by the 22nd Amendment which repealed Prohibition. As of September
2011 the NPVIC bill has passed the state legislatures of California, Hawaii,
Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Vermont and Washington. This
gives it 132 of the required 270 electoral votes needed to enact the popular
vote legislation. Votes are pending in the states of Alaska, Georgia, Iowa,
Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania,
Tennessee, Rhode Island, and South Carolina. The bill passed twice in the
uber liberal legislature of California; however it was vetoed by Governor Arnold
Schwarzenegger. The third time through, Gov Jerry Brown signed it into law.

If the NPVIC gets the required 270 electoral votes, 8 cities
will elect the president. The latest statistics show that the largest population
centers in the country are Chicago, Detroit, Houston, Los Angeles, New
York, Phoenix, San Francisco, and San Jose. Eight cities in six states would
determine the election. This is not the geographic distribution desired by the
Founders. The populist path to hell, paved by George Soros and Michael Moore,
seems the route that liberal Americans wish to take. Claims that the democratic
process is incompetent and failing and needs an overhaul may be true. However
holding the Electoral College responsible for problems of government is
wrongheaded. This rhetoric plays well to the masses who may have degrees, but
are not educated. Their slogan could be “We are mad as hell, and we don’t know
why”. If your state is pending this legislation, please contact your elected
representatives. Under the radar, the NPVIC virus is spreading across the
country.

o
Don’t Get Rid of the Electoral College By
Rachel Alexander -
The election of the president is determined by the Electoral College, not a
national popular vote. In every state but two, Maine and Nebraska, all of a
state’s electoral votes are awarded to the presidential candidate who wins the
popular vote in that state. Each state is allotted as many electoral votes as
they have U.S. Senators and Representatives. This results in smaller states
having more electoral votes proportionate to their populations, and larger
states having less. Since smaller states tend to be more conservative, this
makes it more likely that a Democrat could win the popular vote by winning large
urban areas in big states, while still losing the election. Realizing they can
rig the system, Democrats are advocating replacing our current system with the
National Popular Vote Compact (NPV).
They would get around the difficulty of amending the Constitution by instead
having states voluntarily enter into a compact to participate. States would
agree to assign all of their electoral votes to the presidential candidate who
wins the total popular vote across the country, not just within that state. As
soon as enough states pass this legislation and surpass half the electoral
votes, 270, it will go into effect. Currently eight states and the District of
Columbia have joined, totaling 132 electoral votes so far.

o
'A Government of Laws, and Not of Men': The Electoral College
By
Nancy Salvato - One cannot help but notice, asJames R Whitson explains in
President Elect, “only
the House of Representatives was voted on by the people.” What becomes clear,
when one studies the Founders deliberations, is that every method of selection
was to protect the rule of law and to prevent rule by majority, democracy. So a
movement to elect the president through popular vote, rather than through the
Electoral College, is extremely disconcerting.

As Whitson points out, “The 17th Amendment took the states out
of the federal legislature and indirectly out of the federal judiciary (they had
a vote in the Senate on judicial appointments). By getting rid of the Electoral
College, the states would lose their power over the third branch of the
government, the executive branch.”

How does the Electoral College work on behalf of the states’
rights? Whitson explains: “The Electoral College helps prevent a candidate from
pandering to one region, or running up their votes in certain states. In the
Electoral College system, once you win a majority of the votes in a state there
is no need to get more. In a direct election, the more votes in a state the
better. Here's an example why this can be a bad thing. Massachusetts is very
Democratic. The Democrats will almost always easily win 50% of the vote. In the
Electoral College system, the Democratic candidate visits a few times to make
sure he'll win and then moves on to other states. In a direct election, the
Democratic candidate would spend a lot more time in Massachusetts trying to push
his vote total to 70-80%. In a close election, why visit a state where the polls
say it's 50-50%, spend a bunch of money and time, and maybe get 1-5% more votes
when you can go to a safe state that says you're leading 60-40%, spend less
money and effort, and maybe get 5-10% more votes. In direct election, candidates
would spend more time in states they're easily going to win in order to run up
their vote total. With the Electoral College, candidates have to actually fight
the close states.”

The Electoral College prevents candidates from ignoring
smaller states in favor of big metropolitan areas. In a direct election, Chicago
IL has twice as much voting power as the entire state of New Hampshire. If there
were direct election, Ken Burnside explains in
Should the electoral college be abolished? “A political candidate need only
appeal to the 91 percent of the population that lives in five metropolitan
areas: Los Angeles/Orange County/San Diego County (78 million people), the
Boston-Washington Corridor (106 million people), Chicago and surrounding areas
(38 million people) and Houston, Texas (33 million people). In a direct
election, only the residents of those cities matter in choosing the Presidency.
The person who carries those precincts carries the country. While the current
system is still heavily weighted towards certain states (New York, California,
Florida and Texas chief among them), the disparity of electoral college votes is
merely 27 percent of the total. A candidate, as a result, has to appeal to a
broader range of constituents, and cannot simply be beholden to the larger urban
areas. This results (in theory) in a President who represents all of America.”

The Framers had compelling reasons for dividing political
power, reasons which are still applicable today. As Hoebeke explains, “While all
political power ultimately derived from the people, each branch answered in an
immediate way to an essentially different constituency from that of the others,
and was thus considered less liable to fall victim to the same errors, the same
impulses, or the same corrupting influences.” In other words, as Hoebeke
correctly points out, the U.S. Constitution fragments… “...the power of the
majority, deliberately supplying ‘opposite and rival interests’ as a more
reliable guarantee of individual freedom and minority rights than could
reasonably be expected from merely relying on the good will of the superior
number of citizens.”

When citizens understand the reasons for the Electoral
College, they can understand why direct election would undermine a
Constitutional Republic.
Enactment of such legislation might sound like a good idea, but, in the end
it would lead to majority rule and our rule of law would no longer protect the
rights of our citizenry. This is because majority rule inevitably leads to
tyranny. To borrow the words of the rock band R.E.M., it would be, “the the end
of our world as we know it.”

o Vermont
Joins National Popular Vote Effort (April 2011) - We all recall the
result of the 2000 election, in which George W. Bush won despite receiving fewer
popular votes than opponent Al Gore. In its wake, a compact was formed where
some states agreed to cast their Electoral College votes based upon the winner
of the nationwide popular vote, regardless of state results. Vermont has now
become the eighth state to join the compact, joining the District of Columbia,
Hawaii, New Jersey, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington. Supporters
claim it will become effective once the plateau of states representing 270
electoral votes (a majority) is reached. This could also be called the "sore
losers law." Since these eight states are reliable Democrat strongholds, we
can't help but wonder what would happen if a Republican candidate these states
didn't support was the winner of the popular vote. In theory, such a candidate
could be rendered a loser if the states allowed the Democrat electors who won
their state to vote in the Electoral College. How quickly would the compact be
broken should these blue states' own ox be, er, Gored? While backers claim that
National Popular Vote (NPV) makes "every vote equal," we all know that
candidates will still focus their efforts on large population centers -- states
in "flyover country" would still be ignored. Why campaign throughout the entire
state of Wyoming when nearby Denver has just as many voters in a concentrated
area? If anything, NPV would enhance the power of urban areas -- which, not
coincidentally, tend to be Democrat strongholds. The next target for NPV is
California, where it's on the fast track to passage and would place the measure
into effect in states representing nearly 150 electoral votes.

oThe United Cities of
America By Arnold Ahlert - I'm beginning to wonder how many Americans still
understand why this country is called the United States of America. I suspect a
combination of dumbed-down public schools, the unconscionable expansion of
federalism and an activist judiciary contribute to a certain level of ignorance
regarding the true nature of our democratic republic, but it still amazes me how
many Americans don't get it. The true genius of that democratic republic is that
it consists of fifty separate constituencies loosely united under a federal
umbrella.

...The expansion of federalism at the expense of
the states is little more than a grand attempt to centralize as much power as
possible in Washington, D.C. It is the attempt to make individual Americans as
impotent as possible by moving as many decisions as far possible away from the
local, county and state level, where an individual's power is greatest, towards
the federal level--where the overwhelming majority of Americans don't count for
anything.

The great irony of those championing
the demise of the Electoral College is that they are ostensibly ( I say
ostensibly because I believe there is nothing pure about the motive
here) doing so to promote more freedom, not less.

What a load of baloney. ...Let me be a
bit indelicate here: any American who thinks investing more power in the
federal government is a good idea is either a moron--or working for that
government. The fact that state legislatures in six states have voted to
make their states less influential in selecting the person who would
occupy the highest office in the land is clear evidence that historical
ignorance is a burgeoning phenomenon.

As for the people who think the elimination of the
Electoral College means every vote 'will count equally,' try selling that
garbage in North Dakota or any other low-population state which would be
routinely ignored in every presidential election thereafter. What these
'do-gooders' are really advocating is the eventual dissolution of states' rights
altogether, and the permanent entrenchment of all meaningful power in Congress
and the Oval Office -- or more accurately, in the King and His Court. The United
States of America? The United Cities of America would be more like it. No doubt
that works for those who believe centralized government is the be-all and
end-all. For those who still believe in freedom and representative government,
it's a complete crock.

oGuess
what part of the Constitution goes next! (July 24, 2010) Drastic change in works
to revamp whole Electoral College - Democrats have
found yet another way to circumvent the U.S. Constitution: Bypass the Electoral
College and elect a president by popular vote without first passing an amendment
to the founding document, Jerome Corsi's Red Alert reports. The Massachusetts
Senate has joined five other states in passing a National Popular Vote bill to
do just that. It approved the legislation July 15 by a margin of 28-10. The
National Popular Vote, which already passed the Massachusetts House, is within
one final "enactment vote" in the Massachusetts Senate before the measure can be
ready for the governor's signature, the Boston Globe reported. "Under the
proposed law, all 12 of the state's electoral votes would be awarded to the
candidate who receives the most votes nationally," according to the report. "The
idea is that Massachusetts will instruct its electors in the Electoral College
to vote for the candidate receiving the majority of presidential election votes
nationally, regardless of how the state's own voters cast their ballots," Corsi
explained. The Massachusetts National Popular Vote bill, if signed into law by
Gov. Deval Patrick, will not go into effect until states possessing a majority
of Electoral College votes pass similar legislation. The movement is popularly
characterized as "One Person, One Vote for President," a slogan designed to
suggest the Electoral College method of counting presidential votes is "unfair"
under a 14th Amendment "One Vote, One Person" definition of voter rights. ..."If
the National Public Vote movement succeeds," he added, "the president might be
chosen by the popular-vote winner in 10 or 11 of the most populous states."

oThe Logic of the Electoral College -
The Founders sought to allow the "sense of the people" to be reflected in
government without imposing a "tyranny of the majority," writes Tara Ross. The
Electoral College was part of their solution, and it serves that same end today.
The Electoral College ensures that Presidents' ideas and values represent the
country's wide diversity. And for that reason, candidates who practice
moderation, compromise, and coalition building fare well within it.

o
How to Make Your Vote Not Count by Todd
F. Gaziano and Tara Ross - Electoral College critics argue that the system
causes some votes to be "wasted." Coloradans who voted for Gore in 2000 should
have their votes reflected in the national tally, they say. But this argument is
disingenuous. Votes are not wasted simply because they are cast on the losing
side of an election. Is any vote for governor wasted simply because it wasn't
cast for the winner? America holds democratic presidential elections at the
state level for an important reason: to protect smaller, less populous states.
Under a national popular election system, presidential candidates would have
precious little reason to focus time and energy on states like Colorado. They
would have much more to gain by focusing on the big media and population
centers. This is why almost every state uses the winner-take-all system.
It magnifies their electoral voice, forcing presidential candidates to pay
attention even to small states. The initiative would have Colorado unilaterally
weaken its position among the states. With only one or two net electoral votes
at stake, presidential candidates would have little incentive to respond to
Colorado's special concerns or visit the state in future elections. Obviously,
the folks in San Francisco don't care about that.

o
WHY THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE??? by
Dorothy Robbins - How is the Electoral Method of Voting Supposed to Work?
The system of voting for a President of the United States of America by
the creators of the Constitution has been perverted. Millions of people
qualified to vote and who have voted have been disenfranchised.
Disenfranchised means our votes have been nullified, made useless by the
current method of voting. Is this because the method designed by our
Founders is faulty? No. It is because the method has been perverted. So
who says so and why? Here is how it works so see for yourself. ...

America's election systems have operated smoothly
for more than 200 years because the Electoral College accomplishes its intended
purposes. Some academics have criticized the Electoral College for years. It has
been called an "anachronism" that "thwarts" democratic principles,
"constitutional stupidity," or even a "dangerous game" with "many built-in
pitfalls" that are "bound to destroy us." In 1967, the American Bar Association
blasted the system, calling it "archaic, undemocratic, complex, ambiguous,
indirect, and dangerous." The negative views of today's academics are starkly at
odds with the universal admiration for the system at the time it was created.
Alexander Hamilton, for instance, publicly deemed the Electoral College
"excellent. Other delegates at the Constitutional Convention agreed with him:
They viewed the Electoral College as one of the new Constitution's great
achievements. Today's unenthusiastic views would almost certainly surprise these
early patriots.

The Electoral College Vote. The Constitution provides for a
presidential election among the states, rather than among individuals. In this
election, each state is granted a certain number of representatives, called
electors, to cast votes on its behalf. This national vote among the states is
often referred to as the vote of the Electoral College.

States are allocated one elector for each of their
representatives in Congress. Each state therefore automatically receives a
minimum of three votes, as it is entitled to at least two Senators and one
Congressman, regardless of population. Adoption of the 23rd Amendment in 1961
provided the District of Columbia with at least three electoral votes, as if it
were a state. There are currently 538 total electors. Following the 2000 census,
California has the most electors (55), while seven states plus the District of
Columbia have the minimum number of electors (3).

State legislatures decide how to appoint electors for this
national election, and it is generally agreed that the legislatures may appoint
electors in any manner that they choose. Each state except Maine and Nebraska
currently uses a "winner-take-all" system, whereby the presidential candidate
winning the state's popular vote is awarded the state's entire slate of
electors. Maine and Nebraska each give two electoral votes to the winner of the
state's popular vote and select the remaining electors by congressional
district.

To be elected President, a candidate needs a majority of these
states' electoral votes, which are cast in December. He does not need a majority
of the direct popular vote cast on Election Day. At this time, 270 votes
constitute a majority of the Electoral College and will win the presidency for a
candidate.

Contrary to modern perceptions, the founding generation did
not intend to create a direct democracy. To the contrary, the Founders
deliberately created a republic--or, arguably, a republican democracy--that
would incorporate a spirit of compromise and deliberation into decision-making.
Such a form of government, the Founders believed, would allow them to achieve
two potentially conflicting objectives: avoiding the "tyranny of the majority"
inherent in pure democratic systems, while allowing the "sense of the people" to
be reflected in the new American government. Moreover, a republican government,
organized on federalist principles, would allow the delegates to achieve the
most difficult of their tasks: enabling large and small sovereign states to live
peacefully alongside each other.

The authors of the Constitution had studied the history of
many failed democratic systems, and they strove to create a different form of
government. Indeed, James Madison, delegate from Virginia, argued that
unfettered majorities such as those found in pure democracies tend toward
tyranny. Madison stated it this way:

"[In a pure democracy], [a] common passion or interest
will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication
and concert results from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to
check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual.
Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and
contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the
rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they
have been violent in their deaths." James Madison

The Electoral
College was considered to fit perfectly within this republican, federalist
government that had been created. The system would allow majorities to rule, but
only while they were reasonable, broad-based, and not tyrannical. The election
process was seen as a clever solution to the seemingly unsolvable problem facing
the Convention--finding a fair method of selecting the Executive for a nation
composed of both large and small states that have ceded some, but not all, of
their sovereignty to a central government. "`[T]he genius of the present
[Electoral College] system,'" a 1970 Senate report concluded, "`is the genius of
a popular democracy organized on the federal principle.'"

The Founding Fathers created a stable, well-planned and
carefully designed system--and it works. Past elections, even the elections of
Presidents who lost the popular vote, are testaments to the ingenuity of the
Founding Fathers. In each case, the victor was able to succeed only because his
opponent did not build the national coalition that is required by the Electoral
College. In each case, smaller states were protected from their larger
neighbors. In each case, the presidential election system functioned effectively
to give the country a President with broad-based support.

Alexander Hamilton was right when he described
the Electoral College in The Federalist No. 68. Perhaps the Electoral College is
imperfect--but a perfect solution is doubtless unachievable. Nevertheless, the
presidential election process devised by the Framers is certainly excellent.

o
The wolves are at the door! By Henry
Lamb - America is not a democracy. It was never intended to be a democracy. The
founders worked hard to see that the new government they created was not a
democracy, but a growing segment of the population seems hell-bent on
transforming this great nation into a democracy in which the rights of the
minority are systematically ignored.

o
Republic vs. Democracy - (Video 10:35) "A Republic, If You Can Keep
It" - The American Form of Government. An explanation of the various forms of government, and why America is not a democracy. (More:
Republic vs. Democracy)